gender

Things I would tell young men about women as an older man. Non Incel and non-woman hating advice by Quinton Mitchell

Summary Notes: (1) Women don’t want to feel pressured, guilt tripped, emotionally manipulated or cornered into liking you. It is on them to like you even though you have to show them who you really are and be fine with “rejection”. Don’t see rejection as a sad thing but just another chance at freedom and possibility (2) We often put ourselves into situations where we projected our own expectations onto others, and when hurt, we have a tendency to blame others unilaterally rather than weighing the possibility of mutual or even self-blame. Yet, even if we are to blame, we have to find healthy outlets at coming to self-actualization rather than self-destruction, i.e., avoiding self-medicating, self-harm, lashing out at loved ones just to test their tolerances, etc. (3) Men often get hurt when they are rejected because it is about their utility (use, function, form, status, etc.), whereas women seem to get hurt because the female’s “power of appraisal and selection” is challenged. Men have to be self-aware and able laugh at yourself (4) Many women simply want a somewhat fun or engaging life with positive thinking, so a man having interests, thoughts, ideas, and dreams are central. Women like interesting men but being “too deep” can often scare women away for a platitude of reasons such as A) many women may think that thinking is their territory or B) thinking can come off as self-doubt. Yet, many men actually want women who are intrigued by things as well and who are interesting rather than simply wanting women who just want to “fit in” and conform, i.e., women can’t just sit back and expect people to entertain them, because men too get bored. In a world awash with beauty, beauty isn’t always what attracts a man. Loyalty and the ability to sense feelings and empowering his leadership is what a man often responds to. Men like to strategize, and woman are key forces in consulting men to be feel empowered to make decisions. (5) You don’t have rush into sex, even though that is the “love language” many need to express their feelings towards another. Even though we live in a world where it seems you need sex to vet a person, the truth with age is that emotional, lifestyle and mental connection matters more, because “the mysteries” of woman aren’t that big of a deal to a grown man. Connection is the true “aphrodisiac” than the simple physical act of rubbing body parts until release. Would you rather have a few orgasms here or there or…. have a person who gets you, understands you, respects your insecurities, but also have a good love life? (6) check yourself to ensure you’re not being a hypocrite and don’t always gaslight others as the problem (7) never lie to a woman yet don’t asks questions always where you may force a person to reveal something they aren’t quite ready to reveal or talk about since they may have moved beyond something. There’s a difference between being snoopy and being invasive rather than wanting honesty when an actual issue affecting both parties arises, and (8) bodies can change, get healthier, etc., so the grass isn’t always greener. Men and women will always respond to physical attractiveness of others, and this often can’t be avoided, or people simply enjoy admiring beauty. As long as a person is being respectful to their partners and not using this to force an image or lifestyle on another, or belittle their partner, then I think people have to be confident and mature in what they have and not read too much into things. Sometimes people look but don’t touch just to appreciate what they have or to get over feelings of what it is they think they are missing out on. (9) Many women are conscious to the fact that they are operating in a patriarchal system, so this is why women often like or find humorous things that subverts the status quo. I can’t define feminism, respectfully so, but if I had to simply describe it, feminism is the study by biological or gender assigned females to determine what it is to be a woman in absence of patriarchal overlordship but also within it and determining value by themselves and for themselves. Though many women wear the supposed “male gaze” version of femininity with honor as a means of owning it themselves/re-appropriating power (the sexualized woman, the synthesis between the “Madonna – Whore” complex, etc.), they are too aware that this what they are doing, and that this is all possibly absurd, and they, i.e., women, are actors within the male created system who are simply playing their part as we men project our insecurities onto the world. This is why women sometimes find it attractive when men subvert gender expectations since it shows they are aware of what women are on to and find it partially or equally as silly, which is that men are often operating as bots within a system they created and to their, well — our, own demise, but it also shows a sense of self confidence. Many women see men as boys playing boys game in a manufactured boy’s system where we are ironically killing ourselves as we worship our own cult of masculinity. In this regard, women are certainly smarter because it is us men who often lack self-awareness.

The biggest thing I would tell young men from my experiences would be that women don’t want to feel pressured or cornered into liking you.

A lot of men were trained that “good ole fashioned” “romantic” “can’t eat, can’t sleep” “waking her up with a radio with both of yours supposedly favorite song” “running through a rainstorm” type-of-effort somehow equates to the automatic commitment by a female. This is a reductionist view to female agency, i.e., women are simply machines where if given simple inputs will naturally guarantee intended outputs. The dangerous part of the other side of this coin is that many men find is acceptable to treat women horribly to show tha that they don’t care about what a woman thinks, and sadly some women do respond to this, but that is more so out of a woman’s own self-esteem issues (i.e., many woman have self-esteem issues so I suspect in an unhealthy way that woman seek men that treat them badly, hoping that the man sufficing for their own feelings, will actually venerate them from these emotional lows). Yet, women when they snap out of these self-hatred and self-esteem issues will resent you. Don’t be the guy they end up resenting because they feel like you tricked them into being into some sort of “emotional matrix” full of gaslighting, manipulation, etc.

In other words, the guys who think they are good guys but expect something in return by thinking pre-packaged gestures will equate to romance, and the men who purposely treat women badly to manipulate a woman’s tendency to self-criticize are the same type of man, just using different strategies to control women.

But good men do exist, and it should be a goal for everyone man to aspire to. Yet, the delicate art of being a good man is to just be one, and not “think about being one”. We know right from wrong, and even if there’s a subjective element to it, the universal factor of morality is the “golden rule”, i.e., treat those as you wish to be treated.

The goal is to be the man who just is, respects others, makes his intentions known but is cool if they are rebuffed, and to be the man who hopefully finds someone who respects you, gets you, and doesn’t see your vulnerability or openness as weakness but rather a virtue in a world that often lacks virtue.

The sad truth about “Men’s Rights” advocates is that they will…die alone. They like to poke fun at woman by alleging they will be “cat moms who need to invest in cat food stocks”, but many of these men can only achieve transactional relationships where they will never feel of the joy of being their true, nerdy, nice selves (which I would argue is most men — nerds intrigued by things that some woman may find trivial like history, strategy, philosophy, etc.).

Women are more likely to have social bonds and connections since women often are charged with caring for family members, organizing gatherings or birthday parties, going to churches, shopping, and relying on relationships, etc. Men’s Rights type of men live within a shell and are likely resentful on the inside, often secretly reflecting on the mechanization of their emotions, where they constantly try to rationalize and even fetishize their own dehumanization, often attaching themselves to surrogate antisocial pop culture figures (Patrick Bateman from American Psycho, Tyler Durden from Fight Club, Trent Reznor in the song “Only” — it is a good song even though Trent was being ironic I think to point out what I am talking about, etc.). You can tell they are hurting because their first tendency is to lash out, insult (call others simps, cucks, etc.), etc., as a means of shrouding their true self, no different than how the Wizard of Oz was a shell of a man behind the veil.

Things can be confusing for men because many of the stories or narratives where romantic tropes such as what I referred above are often liked by many females, and maybe in previous generations, such as our parents, i.e., Baby Boomers, the Silent Generation, etc., did respond to mass media differently, i.e., they copied verbatim what they saw on screen even though the messages may have been absorbing were regressive or at least patriarchal (as opposed to our modern hyperaware, self-referential, recycled and often cynical gaze towards pop culture).

Not only are men getting covertly toxic messages, they are also being told that they are toxic by females and social scientists (which has a large degree of merit considering the world is defined largely by patriarchy so men will naturally be criticized when analyzing structural issues — i.e., a possible type of Catch 22), but… there’s no real outlet for men to reach healthy self-actualization (that isn’t political for example – i.e., many modern men simply think the opposite of masculinity is progressive but this is a logical fallacy, yet a lot of feminist leftist thought does argue that masculinity is not progressive…), and this is why in part opportunists such as the Man-o-sphere (Men’s Rights movement) were able to take up social market-share and partially swing the gender dynamics pendulum back to a regressive place.

We need more of a school for progressive masculinity where there is healthy debate, but the central goal is self-reflection.

It is my personal belief that the Man-o-sphere is the actual outgrowth of actual Right-Wing funding of social sciences with the intention of bolstering the capitalist classes (I am not here to argue that capitalism is entirely bad) but then found itself gaining traction on the coattails of figures such as Jordan B. Petersen (a plant), yet the truth about the Manosphere was never about making the world a better place but rather reinforcing the top-down, elitist, hierarchal forces of market-capitalism and emboldening the status quo of the quasi-liberal bourgeoisie class (who need force often typified by the police-militaristic notions of masculinity and coercion to disrupt class consciousness to dissuade the reappropriating of one-percent’s assets). In other words, masculinity has been reduced to being a natural product, tool and commodity of capitalism and needed to reinforce capitalism’s tendency to be coercive to get what it wants and keep people as sheep within this system that requires a small amount of people to profit the most off of the majority of people exerting their labor energy, “economic caloric output”, etc.

Thus, we need more men to be honest about who we are rather than putting on a front, and help steer men into healthier outlets of self-criticism, but also being firm that men do deserve respect to, just like woman demand it. Respect is a balancing act, a seesaw, which should be fun to ride.

Yet, many women were also indoctrinated by society (movies, Instagram posts of supposedly perfect couples, pastiche of previous pop culture, air brushed beauty standards, etc.) that they are the prizes who should be competed for.

In other words, there’s toxic expectations on both sides, yet, exerting effort isn’t bad, nor is having expectations about how one feels they should be treated is bad. It only gets toxic when either gender uses the efforts of others to lead a person especially when they know there’s nothing forming there (i.e., women have to “woman up” and say they aren’t interested as of now), or if a person forces their way into another person’s life where the other people may feel their boundaries are being violated, even if the party forcing things are thinking they are doing the right thing (men have to realize no means no or get the message).

But, to make things less confusing, if a woman likes you, she likes you. You as the man got to take it slow, even though the “hunt” is hard, i.e., we’re tempted to feel overly ecstatic because men often don’t get as much attention as females do. Females often get so much unwanted attention they have to naturally reject men for their own personal safety, whereas many men get little to no female attention and often read too much into female communication.

But, from experience, a woman will make it easy for you if she likes you. It’s a hard pill for men to process because while she appraises men, you may be beat out another suitor, so this explains why men feel the need to be a little pushy and pitch themselves. It’s a damned if you, damned if don’t situation where you simply have to accept as a man and be cool with. If you don’t try, you’ll never know. Thus, being comfortable with rejection is a good thing, so that’s why you never sell yourself too hard, so the fall isn’t that detrimental.

To re-state, if a woman is interested, she’ll give cues such as a simple…asking you questions back and inquiring deeper about things, asking you for your name again even if she forgets initially (it’s oddly ruder when men forget a woman’s name, but somehow acceptable when women forget a man’s name), accepting and appreciating whatever awkwardness you give off. You just sort of know because he’s giving direct indirect signals. Since women don’t get reject as much, they seem to have a subconscious habit of being indirect and not always forward. I am no love guru, but one thing I used to do is if I met a woman who seemed cool, but I was in a rush, if I had noticed her a few times and vice versa (familiarity is a central), then I would give her my number and say “feel free to text me, no pressure. if not, and we see each other again, everything will be cool and no awkwardness”. This actually worked a few times. I was honest, I tried, and I didn’t push unnecessary pressure on her and disarmed myself that if rejected I wouldn’t be weird, especially at a place of employment where she’s just trying to get by. She may not be ready now, but she may remember (file) you for later. The more “genuine non-expectational interactions” you have, the more of a decent person you seem.

But back on course, women don’t like to feel cornered, or guilt tripped into liking a man.

Many women don’t want to hurt people’s feelings, but the unfortunate part of the “game” is rejection. If rejection didn’t exist, then there wouldn’t be special relationships, there would be no order, no one would know whose children are who’s, etc.

If the guy seems too clingy or emotionally fragile, then a woman might shy away for fear that she’ll be put in a position to “break a person’s heart” and then ruin a person’s life for a given amount of time. Or, even if a woman does give in, she may end up resenting the person who she felt emotionally manipulated her by essentially making her feel sorry for them.

Let’s be real, how many men feel they got their heartbroken by a female, but used that female rejection to make themselves into a better person? Many. So, in theory, who really hurt who? Who was using who? Did we not have the conscious choice to enter into a relationship or shoot our shot? Did the other person hurt you or did you put yourself into a situation where you didn’t get the message or signals and then when brutally shutdown or ghosted, you internalized this as being unilaterally the other person’s fault? It’s a possibility. Sure, maybe you have right to be angry, but all I am saying you have to be able to look into the mirror. Even if you feel you got screwed over, why let the other person still haunt you, hurt you? Don’t even give them the benefit of your inspiration, poetics or artistic abilities.

Yet, we teach men to be “stoic” as a means of hiding emotion rather than controlling and understanding emotion, but the problem with hiding emotion is that emotion isn’t being dealt with. Instead of finding light through the existential struggle of finding purposes and meaning as a “being”, many use stoicism to become…dark. Assholes, jerks, predators, etc. A man being “emotional” isn’t bad, but rather a man has to be aware that he’s being that way, ask why he’s feeling that way, and then determine if what is going on is a “you problem or them problem or a combination of both parties problem”. Many times, but not always, often, it’s a both parties problem, i.e., a misalignment of expectations, poor translation of communication, etc.

As a guy I know too well that many “alpha men” are really just emotional ticking timebombs, whereas many men that society may have called “beta males” actually have a better understanding of their own emotions. I have seen it time and time again and at nauseum. Men trying to live these simulated HBO Entourage fantasies (good show by the way if you get the hyperreality of the show) yet interestingly morph into these sorts of urban dwelling, catty, gossiping, sexually degenerate, drugged up, materialistic, pop culture trivial knowledge having people who can very rude and judgmental of others, because pretending to be a jerk is the laziest way of pretending to be superior. And it’s easy to blame this on “liberalism” but most of these guys are beef jerky Joe Rogan listeners at best and “Fresh and Fit Podcast” listeners at worst, anyways. These men were never intellectually “liberal” in our modern conception of the word (even though the term liberal is a shell-game word anyways considering it spreads the gambit of what we consider to be both Democratic and Republican, e.g., both base on liberal, i.e., enlightenment ideas) but were often clout chasers, going with whatever the wind blew, yet, exhibiting internalized toxic masculine (yes, I said it) traits, once society got tired of “wokeness”, they jumped ship to the nearest surrogate masculine ideology they could.

Yet, many women go after these men which are emotional time-bombs, and what I am saying is, don’t even entertain it. The modern issue with stoicism in men’s rights movements such as the notion of “Sigma Males” is that it’s not teaching men to understand emotion through self-reflection and being analytical about the hypocrisies of society – which includes but is not limited to patriarchal ideas or notions – but rather to make men into “productive emotionless drones” who seem to not care about fitting in, ironically on the grounds of being seen and respective for not caring, i.e., fitting in.

Women don’t to be cornered, guilt tripped, etc.,

However, to move on, women I think have a slight toxic trait which is them thinking they have a unilateral ability to observe and psychoanalyze things, and they are impervious to this themselves. In other words, women want to see everyone else, but don’t really want to be seen for who they are, hence they can put on a mask. Women are people watchers (and, yes, men are too, but I am saying it seems more a female characteristic).

It sounds childish, non-academic, non-intellectual, etc., but from experience, the less a woman realizes you notice them, they sort of notice you. The busier or engaged you are (I mean genuinely doing your thing rather than flaunting that you’re always busy to seem important — women can read through that), the more they seem to notice you, because…they can…observe you. They want to observe your raw emotions, reactions, how you interact with others, how others view you or don’t view you, how you deal being alone, around others, etc., and how comfortable you generally feel in your own skin. They want to see that you aren’t overthinking yourself. I remember playing football and a coach grabbed my helmet and said, “I was thinking too much” rather than “reacting”.

Why do women do this? I don’t know. A person who seems guided by a mission or purposes, even if it means doing the most basic things, i.e., working, taking care of yourself, catching up with people, etc., means a person isn’t really dwelling on life, thus they have survival characteristics. Women want to feel safe, and a way they do this is by observing and vetting your interactions, yet the only issue is women think this is a one way lane or power they have, so I am telling young men to let women have their powers, doing your thing, treat them with respect, but don’t get too hung up on them if they can’t interpret your value…but you have to have value, but having value doesn’t mean superficial, glib, materialistic things, but more so having a sense of being, striving to learn a skill, saving money, learning to appreciate life, finding joy, etc.

On an extreme end of this idea, it plays into the notion that a woman notices you once you get a woman or attention from others. Women use other women to vet men, i.e., if she thinks he’s good enough, then he must be. I joke it is how women wear or sometimes take each other’s clothes. Men seem to operate differently. Even though men may lust after the same women, once that woman is taken, i.e., used, then a male’s tendency to be competitive over women sort of kills off the attraction, and even more so if the woman is seen as being “passed around” by a group of men, it’s not necessarily that she’s sexual but indecisive in herself and emotionally not independent, i.e., she may be more of a headache to deal with and unstable herself. Also, the more partners a woman is seen has having to me doesn’t have to do with sex with age (feeling sexually insecure others “had her”) but more so safety, i.e., the more men she deals with more instances of possible hostility or even violence, especially if previous men from her past disrespect her. I am not saying this is right or wrong, or fair, but I am saying it is a social phenomenon, which can be triumphed over, but for the sake of this section I am appealing more often than not to base human reactions, desires, feelings, etc.

Why do women get hurt?

Women from my experiences get hurt when they get rejected too, but whereas a man gets devastated because his effort, utility, etc., were rejected, thus is being, a woman gets hurt when she realizes her “power of appraising, vetting, and observation” didn’t work out. How men are betting on their effort, women are betting on their ability to have selected right.

This power is so central to females that when a relationship goes sour and the man she wants is no longer interested, she sees it as something wrong with her ability to have appraised correctly. Women are the shoppers of the species. The are the “genetic furniture arrangers”. I say this because shopping requires consent, i.e., in order for a woman to be happy and for the species to consensually procreate, the woman ultimately has to choose, even though the product, the man, has to pitch himself. Imagine being rejected by your own clothes, the furniture in your house, i.e., the things you purposely put into your life to doll up your life (control it) to make into the vision you had for yourself.

In a way, a woman getting rejected, just like men getting rejected can be a growing experience, especially if one looks into the mirror and doesn’t put all the blame on the other but takes ownership of their own mistakes. The same way how Incels on the extreme fringes, all the way to the normal everyday aggrieved men try to paint women that hurt them as femme fatales, many women likely do the same with what I like to call the “Billie Holliday broken female” musings.

The same way how men can set up women to be the villains of their “glow up” “get back into the gym, eat beef jerky or protein powder” “triumphant story arc”, women can do the same thing with men, i.e., using men as the villains to get back to their “little black dress, hoping a random stranger buys you a drink at a bar” “Stella got her groove back” moment.

So, this goes back to what I was saying about irony previously. Who really hurt who?

Maybe we are all using people as objects to test our own realities/challenge our own ontologies, selfishly (where selfishness is in part a natural part of existence, i.e., self-preservation, self-comfort, etc.), but we often but not always make this mistake without realizing it (since we were indoctrinated to think certain behaviors guaranteed success), yet, when our realities and expectations are challenged, we either internalize the hurt in a purely narcissistic way of being unilaterally aggrieved, or we can positively use this existential situation to check our own behavior, and that of the other person, yet hopefully come to a sort of balanced situation.

A healthy person can put themselves on trial (a very healthy person may come to the verdict that in some cases he or she alone were at fault), whereas the opposite points fingers at others, blames others, and instead uses the hurt to encase and reinforce their potential toxic tendencies (note: I am saying toxic as opposed to “anitsocial” because antisocial is an actual clinical designation framework that I feel is personally misused by the general public as means of pointing to behaviors an individual subjectively doesn’t like).

But I am not saying don’t blame others if blame is actually due, but rather just don’t jump to automatic conclusions all the time that how you feel is someone else’s fault. Sometimes the people we think hurt us don’t even realize it and once confronted with it, they don’t know how to handle it. But you do have legitimate sociopaths out there who simply want to see what other can do for them and then will hurt, triangulate, etc.

As a disclaimer, throughout this post I am talking mostly about situations where people have choice to enter and leave, and where there was no sort of physical force or detrimental emotional manipulation involved. For example, if a person is physically attacked or assaulted, it is never the victim’s fault. I am speaking purely from non-criminal, awkward, daily interactions between men and woman (however, I am not trying to be exclusionary to any same sex or non-binary people who may resonate with any of the words I am talking about, but I can only speak from a straight viewpoint, i.e., Westernized, biologically male, cisgender heterosexual perspective).

Before I end this, I want to say never lie to a woman.

It’s tempting or maybe even a knee jerk reaction to embellish our lives a bit to seem more interesting, tough, cool, important than what we are, but genuine honestly will always serve you best.

If you don’t know something, say I don’t know.

However, you are entitled to your privacy. For example, there’s certain questions I just wouldn’t ask my partners because what does it matter anyways? I am not one to ask about “body count” or past relationships because A) why make your partner relive the past and possibly relive a romance or trauma? and B) sometimes prying too much just to set up a person with being forced to tell you the truth is a little…rude. Somethings are just left unasked for. As long as things from a person’s past aren’t criminal or public to the extent of affecting the present of future in a detrimental sense, then I find it best to leave things in past.

For example, I wouldn’t ask a woman what her body count is, however, let’s say a woman was…a porn actress. This hasn’t happened to me, but it seems to be a trope recycled through men’s talk shows, but to me is, if it’s public, i.e., something that will affect our future or require me to defend her honor or social standing or even job (even if I accept her past) then I should know so I am prepared, but I don’t need to know about private encounters. You just have to hope that the person you’re with now is a decent human being who didn’t do things in the past out of pure selfish indulgence knowing they could bury things and then lead a boring life that neuters or domesticates you, where you as the partner are on the hook for conforming to overly conservative standards and denial of your legal desires.

Summary to the fellas. Be cool, be chill. Come in peace. Learn to live with rejection but also don’t beat yourself up. Realize sometimes we have the blinders on and try to force things and we set ourselves up for being hurt, etc. Don’t corner or guilt trip women, but also don’t unnecessarily pander to them either. Sympathize when sympathy is due.

(Radical Thought) If Race is a Construct, then why does the Black Left double down in their own construct? False dichotomies between the House and Field. The nihilistic feedback loop of blackness (c) by Quinton Mitchell

About the author: I have a Bachelors in Business Administration, an additional Associates of Applied Science degree with Contracts Management, and a Master of Science degree in Management with an Operations Management focus. I am honorably discharged veteran of the United States Air Force and veteran of AmeriCorps. I current work in corporate America. 

Basic Summary and theory by Quinton Mitchell: There is no distinction between the “House Slave” and “Field Slave” because ultimately the House is “Western Civilization”, so for people who call black Western peoples as being “House Slaves” – often as a means of calling their blackness or lived-existences into question, i.e., shaming, de-legitimizing, etc. – this is actually ironic because even for those who espouse an often Leftist or Marxist, or “woke”, or de-colonial/post-colonial sentiment (e.g. black separatism, black nationalism, black supremacy, etc.) they too are a part of the Western framework (the House). Think about that… Marxism even as a combative ideology to capitalism/imperialism/colonialism IS STILL a Western framework of analysis. If anything those who consider themselves “Field Slaves”, insinuating to themselves as if they are more authentic because they claim to reject the “House”, are disingenuous because they have the decision to fully be unprogrammed from the West but choose not to (often because of comfort), and often come up with an excuse/gas-light to not deprogram (e.g., de-colonize and expatriate back to Africa). At least, those considered “House Slaves” are attempting to carve their own space (room), e.g., the black bourgeoise, within the House (Western Civilization), rather than constantly criticizing the “House” while still technically living in it such as the alleged field-slave. Adding more irony, many of the “field slaves” want what they consider to be the lifestyle that the “house slaves” to be, so in many cases this shaming tactic of “field slaves” (e.g., the urban and rural poor) is jealousy, resentment, taking out their trauma on those who may have had slightly more stable upbringings, etc. The “Field Slave”, i.e., the supposed “that nigga”, the “real nigga”, i.e., the black equivalent of a “chad” (Alpha Male) or self-ascribed unapologetic black person, is…speaking Western languages, using Western philosophy, didactic, has a Western spiritualism, etc. If anything the goal of the Field Slave, i.e., the “woke nigga” within the context of how its used in black cultural discourse, is not to really… achieve what it is they claim to want achieved, logically that is. The logical conclusion of all de-colonial thought is to expatriate, unless the goal is to maybe have some sort of incubation period without outside influences, but on the future goal of re-integrating within the larger multi-cultural society. If this logical conclusion is not followed all we end up with is a sort of “perpetual, spiritual, never-ending struggle”, because people never realize the solution is to de-program if they truly have an issue or see no reconciliation with the “program” (the West). To further add irony, this “perpetual, spiritual, never-ending struggle” becomes something equivalent to “intellectual masturbation”, because it’s not really achieving anything (just as the act of having physical intimacy, i.e., doing something in the real world), but rather is pretending to do something while tricking brain into thinking that it’s achieving something real, e.g., black intellectual talks a lot, but don’t do a lot, but the ultimate “do” is to “de-colonize”, i.e., put your money where your mouth is rather than being in perpetual “thinking” “analyzing” “deconstruction”, etc. The black intellectual notably of the Left, often leaves people with no “solutions” and still while profiting within a capitalist structure (if we are to agree capitalism is bad) say statements such as “there’s no ethical consumption in capitalism”, i.e., this is the best I can do, I can’t change anything, but I’m still going to get my money. Yet, even if giving a solution, the logical conclusion still remains which is to fully de-program.

Foreword #1 - The World is More Segregated Than I’ve seen in a While… Unfortunately… I blame the Far Left and Far Right

The Far Left and Far Right, who both have gripes with “Liberalism”, i.e., Democracy, Republicanism, the notion of individualism, etc., are sort of the same on race but from different directions. Yet, liberals, which includes was consider to be conservatives, are not off the hook either. Where as the Far Right fascist wishes to have racial segregation by positing a sense of racial hierarchy. The Far Left, often Communists, incidentally pushes racial segregation by position de-colonial self-determinism, which is basically, leaving races to purse their own paths. Yet, the liberal in the middle, often has an idea of commodifying race which by proxy creates its own unique segregation that can be profited off of.

Regardless, things are bad. Umar Johnson and Nick Fuentes are essentially the same but just different races. The Nation of Islam in the internet age is able to spread is ideologies under the guise of Pan Africanism so you get their borderline Nazi ideology spreading not only through the “Black West” but also the Caribbean, Africa, etc.

In the wake of Black Lives Matters, there’s been a split between African American and Asian American communities which is in part being addressed by the Stop Asian Hate movement, where many urban Asians see themselves under threat from “unaccountable black violence”. The BLM movement despite its noble intentions of humanizing black bodies, was always going to be scapegoated and gas-lit by white or other supremacists who have always had issues with black people.

Anyways, it seems like this segregationist movement that is on the rise because of Far Left Communist, Woke or “Clinical Gaze” Liberals, and Far Right Racist is…planned. As the world becomes more globalized, many the powers at be need to keep “groups in their zoo cages”. Racial segregation has always been an easy way to control the population.

Foreword #2 – Slight Problem with White Liberals: First off, separate from the core purpose of this post, I want to say that white liberals are sort of annoying, though I find Black Leftist living/benefitting under capitalism, especially those I would consider to be separatist, nationalist, “racial gatekeepers”, etc., to be equally if not more annoying. But relating back to white liberals, I only say this not because they are bad because, in theory, they are allies despite what old snippets of Malcolm X warning black people about white liberals being recycled in the ether of the internet is saying. Yet white liberals (allies) have a bad habit of being supportive of very problematic black ideas largely because they feel they can’t say anything for fear of pushing the “white savior” mentality.

White liberals, despite mostly good intentions, seem to be obsessed with finding the “blackest of black people” – a type of philosopher stone journey for “raw”, “tough”, “Mandingo”, “mama-san”, blackness – because they feel frustrated not being able to fully understand – at least from their perspective – the black experience.

As a result, white liberals end up elevating radical black voices where some are very inquisitive/helpful, but many are actually problematic and self-serving, i.e., grifters. For example, figures that are sexist, patriarchal, or, even woke – where woke to me is first off a subjective term, but how it has morphed in the public lexicon simply means “annoyingly aware to the point of deconstructing reality and slipping into New Age, i.e., “Far Out”, Neoplatonic, esoteric, quasi-Occultic nonsense“, which ironically can lead to cult-like thinking, and arguably in my opinion is a way of inadvertently controlling the public since the “proletariat” is riddled with relativism, thus unable to coordinate, act, plan, and execute).

Woke objectively is not bad. It’s really something akin to barbershop quasi conspiracy and intellectual fact rapping associated with black or BIPOC people as a means of inserting our roles, history, and contributions within the larger superstructures of society (e.g., the field of history itself), but the fringe of wokeness is pure post-truth relativism, paranoia, and conspiracy theory, which feeds back to tropes such as “woogedy boogedy“, i.e., black people stereotyped as overly superstitious and afraid.

White liberal support, though appreciated (and, I sincerely mean that, for example with white liberal support of global protests in support of Black Lives Matters calling out police injustices), often “pornifies”, “fetishizes”, etc., the black experience with a sort of “clinical gaze”, yet, many are just being played ironically by bad-faith black activists who simply want unaccountable power, i.e., a sort of racial cuck-holding, not only over other black people (by playing the “gate keeping and cultural-purity testing game” which i will speak about below) but also others in general. Yet, this behavior that I am criticizing can be done by anyone of any group (and, if anything is the just the dark-side of intersectionality – which in and of itself can be a helpful tool for analysis if used properly). So I’m not trying to insinuate that “white liberals” or even black activists are bad, but rather in many instances, the relationship can come off as mutually exploitative, and often defeatist since many opposing voices within black political discourse are cancelled for appearing not to be “black enough” from this black fetishized aesthetic of the “Black, Marxist, revolutionary, de-colonial” radical.

Foreword #3 – The Dark Wokeness of Umar Johnson, Rizza Islam, and Black Cults

For example, there’s so many “sinister woke” figures nowadays. Nation of Islam with Rizza Islam, followers of Umar Johnson who I call “Umarites”, Hoteps, Moors (Moorish Science Temple), Carbon Nation Cult, Nuwabians, Black Hebrew Israelites, The Nation of Yaweh, the Black Aboriginals (i.e., the fringe ideology that Black Americans are indigenous to the USA and not from Africa), and Naturopathic Con-spiritualist thinkers such as Yahki Rapha Elohim, etc. We can even include Kanye “Ye” in this.

Black people seem more conspiratorial in nature because we’ve had our roots stripped so there’s a deep rooted insecurity when constantly reminded by Western Civilization that we are “lesser”, rather than our African roots being fully included in the West. You add the legacy of segregation where people are left in “echo chambers”, the legacy of mass incarceration (often where Muslim conversion happens), etc.

Yet, instead of intensive, mainline research and anthropology it seems many use “dues ex machina” to fill in the gaps. For example, there’s a movement now saying that Black Americans are indigenous Native Americans, yet, this seems like fringe black though similar to the white supremacist “Vineland movement”, where they believe they as a Germanic peoples are entitled to the Americas because of Vikings settling parts of Eastern Canada.

Umar Johnson, who really doesn’t say anything original but his oration skills mixed with his ability of rapping off facts has elevated him as an important voice in black culture, despite his racial segregation ideas, sexism, and patriarchal tendencies that are often in alignment with the Manosphere (Kevin Samuels, The Fresh & Fit Podcast, etc.) which is prevalent online (e.g., such as his stance of patriarchal polygamy, yet, denouncing feminism and those on the LGBTQ spectrum, or even denouncing those not physically seen as black enough, i.e., dark enough, i.e. spreading colorist ideas but in an inverted way to support black supremacy as opposed to whiteness as purity in favor of white supremacy).

There’s also Rizza Islam of the black supremacist group and cult, the Nation of Islam, who has in my opinion as a person who spends a lot of time online, is simply appropriating conspiracies from other online conspiracy theorists but packaging them for the black community (for example, Rizza Islam’s discussions on transhumanism are no different than Jay Dyer, a white Eastern Orthodox YouTube conspiracy theorist who often spreads anti-West and pro-Kremlin adjacent conspiracies who has links to the MAGA movement via his relationship to Alex Jones). Let’s not forget other black cults such as Nuwabians, Carbon Nation, Black Hebrew Israelites with Brother Nathaneyl, and the child abuse case of Mother Anna in North Florida (who was later arrested in the Metro Atlanta Area), etc.

Main Paper/Post

You often hear in the political Left people say that race is social construct, and by Political Left I mean Socialists (a spectrum of ideologies), Communists – a type of socialism with specific criteria (often under a Marxist ideology which seeks to have a cashless, classless, stateless world by way of a centralized dictatorship of proletariat, i.e., working class), and to some extent Left Liberal (i.e., a progressive who isn’t socialist or Communist but still has liberal principles, and by liberal I mean deriving from the “classical sense” of liberalism to the early modernist definition of liberalism, i.e., believing in private property, separation of church and state, taxes on the rich, etc. We can even throw in some “Centrists” (who have learned to accept or at least tolerate this stance from the Left).

Yet, even though the Left says that race is a social construct, often as a means of challenging and deconstructing the manufactured social systems within colonial/post-colonial nations which are synonymous with the word “Imperialist” (e.g., capitalist, elite, bourgeoisie), it seems that the Left ironically is…race obsessed.

And race obsessed to the point of being a type of inverted version of the “race realism” and “segregation” notable within the Political Right. For example, what the Left ends up pushing self-determination, which is great, but often that self-determination is fueled by a type of race-based (arguably dialectical) anger towards whom a particular group sees as the responsible for their current and/or past treatment.

Adding to this, you get “gatekeeping” of culture where race and culture are often seen as intrinsic, rather than culture being what I call an “ontological construct nuanced by historicity” (i.e., ideas that just so happen to solidify over time and space, often as a people “anthropologically” interact with their environment and where such as ideas or expressions of ideas, e.g., art, are eventually seen as natural when in fact they are mental and social constructions in and of themselves.

As a result of seeing everything in culture as racial in nature – even though the Left refutes race existing in nature – what we end up with is…”purity testing”, which could be re-named “cultural eugenics”, which of course if…eugenics, i.e., the appraisal of purity based on often made-up ideas.

Ironically, for black people in contemporary Left-Wing politics, there’s something disingenuous about this because many people are accepting of the fact that race is a social construct, but many black people under the notion of self-determination are doubling down in their belief of race. Sure, it could be argued that we as black people just simply need our time to ourselves to peacefully process our existences within Western civilization that fell upon us (e.g., creating stable systems that do not “otherize” black peoples).

Yet, black people are more so protected – relatively speaking – compared to the past because of this idea of race as a construct being accepted by “non-blacks”, yet, with black people doubling down in racial consciousness, often where certain actors are not only gate-keeping but perpetuating a typical of “cultural eugenics test” on “outsiders” and “insiders” (i.e., “you’re not black enough” types), this all makes people fall in alignment with a culture (black culture) that ironically was produced by the same white supremacist system we as black people claim to want to transcend above.

Does that make sense? To restate, the political-left says that race doesn’t exist, often as a means of challenging white supremacy/colonialism and by default uplifting black/”BIPOC” peoples, yet, black peoples while using this notion to their benefit in one hand are double-downing in the other hand into a strict adherence to the concept of “blackness”, where such as blackness is ironically a byproduct of white supremacy, where blackness was designed to be the manufactured dialectic to whiteness (AAVE, i.e., African American Vernacular English, i.e., Ebonics vs King’s English, sagging vs wearing your pants up, fluidity vs rigidity, spicy vs bland, etc., etc.) . In other words, black people doubling down on racial purity/separatism are actually giving the white supremacists what they want because the white supremacist wanted black people to be segregated whether white supremacy (Right Wing) did it or black people did it themselves (via Left Wing ideology or even Right-Wing ideology, it doesn’t matter).

Sure, even though we as black people “claimed this culture from our manufactured situation of oppression for ourselves and turned it into empowerment” such as calling ourselves Niggers (niggas) and being polar opposites to what we consider to be “white”, the truth remains that what we are now empowered in what was and still is highly influenced by white supremacy.

In other words, black people will never be “free” unless we totally remove ourselves from this trajectory regardless of if we take it for ourselves. Better put, no matter how black you think you’re acting, you actually acting in many ways what were simply designed to be opposite. In other words, black simply means opposite of white. Just the way I am sure our Founding “Fathers” wanted the colonial caste system to be. To reiterate, acting “black” doesn’t mean “free”, but just opposite, but black to me is not a monolith, yet many black people have a hard time processing away from the monolithic viewpoint of blackness they too were indoctrinated with.

Most Black Americans, including those who claim to be woke, “down”, “bought it, bought it”, etc., aren’t really willing to fully be “unprogrammed”, i.e., leave Western Civilization. Nothing is stopping black people from going back to Africa, taking their US currency, and totally forgetting about all the trauma we seem to be obsessed with reminding ourselves about. But the truth is, most don’t want to leave and will always come up with a “saving face excuse”, such as “We’re still waiting on reparations”, as if reparations – especially in the form of controversial cash payments (only controversial because many people in the US now are not descended from the situations that created black oppression such as slavery) will ever happen. For certain extreme Pro-Black voices, they still desire their capitalist food, TV, sweatshop shoes, etc. So, if anything, most extreme Pro-Black types are not only disingenuous but are really just…talking but talking as a means of pushing what I talked about which is purity testing (cultural eugenics). They want to be rewarded and idolized for saying the most woke things to establish themselves atop a cultural hierarchy. Better put, the extreme Pro-Black woke talker is actually just using culture as a currency in a social hierarchy where performance, words, and aesthetics are more valuable than the actual construction of physical infrastructure, let alone advanced infrastructure. It’s easy to be Pro Black and segregationist and open a food stand, barber business or print T-shirts than it is to build…computers, rockets, etc. If anything, our obsession with race has resulted in a type of intellectual laziness were analyzing culture, qualitative studies, liberal arts, etc., takes precedence over hard to learn sciences such as math, engineering, etc. Instead of the hard things we are content with talking, “preach!”, “oh! snap!”, “he ain’t wrong!” intellectual “rap battles” which at this point have slipped beyond tolerable wokeness and instead have gone into literal La-La land of Ancient Alien, Neoplatonic, Occultic and Antediluvian conspiracy theories (with personalities like Kanye West as the extreme avatar this madness) .

Western Civilization colonized the entire planet. So be it. Who cares? Because Western Civilization doesn’t necessarily mean “white” because a civilization is simply the accrual of ideas that have embedded themselves into systems. Yet, ideas that created Western Civilization, despite being mostly “brewed” in Europe, since Europe offered the best real estate to do so (e.g., a temperate, seasonal area with access to fresh water and ocean access, without major viruses and predators as that of Africa), were derived from “ideas” from all over, be it Muslim math which played a big role in navigation technology, being awe inspired by the Egyptians, philosophy from the ancient Iranians, and let’s not forget that the oldest human activity is from Africa.

But, still there’s black nationalist, Pan Africans, etc., who want to be in the United States yet are continuing to use the antiquated tropes and manufactured dramas of “house niggas” vs “field niggas” as a means of analysis, which just further proves how black minds seem to have the inability to escape dialectical (us. vs them, either/or, Ying Yang) thinking, and if so, they go totally far into the deep end of conspiracy theory.

The irony of Black Extremists or woke types such tropes such as House Nigga or Field Nigga is sadly comical in a nihilistic sense because…we’re all in the house. The house is Western civilization.

For a people birthed from dialectics and who seem to not be able get over dialectical thinking, i.e., white vs black, house nigga vs field nigga, the only solution is dialectics, which is to assimilate or at least be more tolerable to the fact we are now a Western people or to…leave, seriously, go back to Africa. Man or woman up and go back if you give up on the West or the United States. Because, if this does not happen, blackness will forever be an Escher Maze

Black people’s inability to provide acceptance amongst themselves and accept differences will result in a brain drain as black people who climb the ladder will blend with others as they find themselves shamed by their own people but relate to others because they have expanded tastes or see that there’s a larger world outside the constraints of black culture, but also we will have a smaller more radical group of black people where black people will likely be fourth in place as Hispanics and Asians move in and outperform black Americans.

Can “Democratized” Adult Content Fund Domestic Terror? A clear example of white privilege and insanity.

(Please Donate) If you like content like this, please subscribe to by blog but also donations are more than welcomed. I am an independent blogger, thinker, etc., trying to better create and invest in this site. There are no subscription fees to my blog at the current time (it’s free until further notice), so donations are welcomed. Any amount is welcomed. Donations can be made to paypal.me/qmarcell87 at the following link: https://paypal.me/qmarcell87?locale.x=en_US

The “industry” since it can’t control everyone has to continue inclusion training and talks etc. Background checks, etc. I’m sure there’s many good people in the majority in that industry. It also highlights that adult content creators should be donating some of their income to progressive causes to hedge the possibility that bad actors might be using revenues for things that endanger the public.

Yet, Is democratized pornography funding parts of domestic terrorism? Maybe, Vice Media can pick up on this to do more research because I don’t have the time. Maybe if something were to come out about how a minuscule fraction of Only Fans or Camsoda or whatever are using profits to fund international or domestic terror, it would be silenced, because 1) who wants to kill the party for the millions of law-abiding people who use porn as a means of relieving stress from a world bent on “lean productivity” and hyper change, and 2) businesses won’t want their traffic hampered (governments might also like having the ability to “peek into personal behavior as well”, i.e., metadata being filtered my Mormons at NSA Utah Data Centers). The question of “Can domestic adult content fund domestic terror” isn’t out of the question, considering in earlier decades of adult content the mafia did have ties, meaning, also, that government snoops also had ties. Are we in an era where the pleasure and flashing lights of the industry has hidden the possibility that there is a small underworld where criminals (and, possibly even government agents) are involved in porn with the criminals using the easy money (relatively speaking) to fund various operations, and/or government investigators coming to investigate those criminals, yet, as we know in cases relating to “state evidence” that investigations can turn into decades long infiltration projects where the “Feds” cut deals with dangerous people on the hopes of capturing “more dangerous people”?

It would be stupid to attempt to fund domestic terror or international terror with pornography because the IP trail, payments, etc., yet, some goof balls might be tempted. However, one cannot control what one does with the money they make from employment.

Anyways, a Neo Nazi and porn actor, real name Paul Kryscuk, porn alias Pauley Harker, who has slept with women of all colors and religions (for titles such as Abuse Her, Facial Abuse, Latina Abuse, Arab Street Hookers, Ghetto Gaggers, etc., according to IAFD.com), sometimes in the most disparaging ways for fetish-oriented content, was arrested for interstate gun trafficking and for planning to murder protestors. He seems like just another idiot casualty of the post-Federal Reserve “ZOG” YouTube conspiracy universe, compounded by Ancient Alien History Channel grooming, sprinkling in some Vikings “badassery” (tying into the whole European “West is the Best” thing as a psy op) etc. Another, “conservative woke” guy who blames the Jews for everything, yet, while also having sex with Jewish women… Hm. Confusing. Not only does this event show an “anything goes” mentality regarding who is in the pornography industry (as long as you can “perform”), even though I am confident that gossip is a good way at vetting out bad actors, but it does sadly show that money takes more precedent than doing the right thing. Many people need the money (something I sympathize with); however, this article is not to shame sexual feminism or sex workers of any gender, but when our reality (paradigm – way of thinking) boils down to pure transactions, I can see how bad ideologies can feed off “the industry” (porn). But, before we got into this story, let me start with my beginning thoughts. As a disclaimer, this is not an indictment of the traditional adult entertainment industry which seems to be a very professional enterprise (finances, real estate, property, top audiovisual equipment, marketing, distribution, warehousing, costumes, hair stylists, make up, special effects, IT, website creation, award ceremonies, Halls of Fame, health testing, etc.) which has improved over time from something seedy (past tendencies of letting in drug abusers, outbreaks) into something also corporate/safe, nor a criticism of independent content creators.

His fellow performers probably had no idea about his beliefs. As far as they were concerned it was just another day at work, even though some of those days involved dog bowls, spitting in women’s faces, and general (well advanced level) jerk behavior. There’s also no way of knowing of when Mr. Harker’s beliefs changed, yet, there is the possibility he was a sociopath the entire time, living a secret life on set, but elsewhere bragging about this escapades those to want to see the collapse of civilization for some sort of “racial hierarchy paradise”. In a two party system, who do you think he voted for? Trump is the answer. Ding ding ding.

But, porn isn’t the issue. At this point of Hot Girls Wanted culture, porn seems also collegiate with schedules, testing, work, furnished apartments, chaperones etc. It’s really just some bad individuals I’m sure. Be they closeted Neo Nazis from God Knows Where (Orange County, Bakersfield, the Antelope Valley etc), to Crips or Bloods, to bikers, to even remnants of the mob, to even Zionists, or sprinkle in some Jihadist. Traditionally there’s money to be made in server hosting, pushing traffic, leasing mansions, payment systems, etc. But Only Fans has made it easier for predominately good people with some bad ones to make money.

I am not writing to judge people within sex work or kink but particularly for this paper, my focus is the pornography industry. I feel old. Sex, insecurity about sex, the alleged hipness of sexual experiences, years of bombardment of sexually charged content from 1990s wet t-shirt beer commercials, MTV Spring Break bikini dance contests hosted by Pauly Shore or Ed Lover, nineteen-eighties hair metal videos by Motely Crew with women in cages, gangster rap, to porn itself, to the punk rebelliousness of sexual feminism as it tries to achieve equality while chipping away at the “Id” of phallic patriarchy (seems like they won that war already in the West – just being honesty – I could be wrong), the existential crisis that sexually explicit content can cause – for better or worse, I prefer to say better – as it erodes and reshapes one’s preconceived notions of morality, are nothing new to me. Ok, people like to f-ck. Ok, there is a media or art form relating to sexuality to fulfill a human desire. Ok.

If anything, I am over it. There is nothing “kinky” or “he-he-he” about it. Yawn. Sex. Yawn. At this point the true “porn” is something that most people are lacking, i.e., a true human connection, stability, commitment. Yet, from the obscenest gonzo (well, what is available on Hub sites), to the most passionate plot centered porn, I feel society is so used to it that it’s not something “groundbreaking”, though I admit that being older I am trapped in my nostalgic era, i.e., I do not really follow new entertainers (I was the last generation of the DVD) and I have my “go to favorites” and favorite actresses. Typically, ladies from the nineteen nineties to the early two-thousands typically fading away after Sasha Grey (who I was not much of a fan of, to be honest, though I do value her role as a symbolic figure who really inserted the “nihilistic rebellion” of female sexuality more so into mainstream pornography, thus being a catalyst for women’s empowerment to arguable degrees).

If I am following someone new it is typically the safe (and sensual) category of the “MILF”, because I think mature women are attractive. Yet, I am a straight guy, so… I accept porn as a part of life. A public utility. The right to get off, to get a dopamine or serotonin hit, to fantasize. Though the medium is argued as crude, such as what I’m reading in Angela Carter’s The Sadien Woman and the Ideology of Pornography, there is something philosophical about porn and I am not being purposely erudite (high-brow) by staying that. You can consider the act of watching porn as a type of therapy. A mediation between self, the content, and questions pertaining of gender and society at large (not to forget all the various intersections or race, culture, income, class, etc.). I can easily see how pornography could be some topic of a French Philosopher analyzing semiotics, objects in relation to other objects and how meanings are derived, hyper-reality, etc. Don DeLillo said it best in his 1985 work, White Noise, in which he stated, if my memory is correct, “that technology is lust removed from nature”. Porn is a part of the human species. From Stone Age carvings of voluptuous women as virility fetishes found in European cave dwellings such as the Venus of Willendorf, to Japanese elaborate paintings of Geisha (awkwardly engaging in acts with squids), to Greek tapestries with women dancing with dildos, porn has always been with us and will always be. To me shame, is childish. Shame is barbaric. Shame is a way of control for people to make it appear as if their self-ascribed morality is somehow higher than that of others, or a way to even guilt trip another. The sinister impression in which mainstream media tries to push relating to pornography as something sinister in nature, something to make one feel queasy (what I call the Cohen Brother’s aura, i.e., that strange feeling you get watching their films where you feel helpless) as preconceived notions are challenged, is so tiring to me. We’ve been through this. Grow up.

I support the idea of pornography because I figure so many bodies have been thrown at the medium that to reverse course would mean to bound the species into repeating what has already been done. Every set, every actor, and every release has a story – some good, some bad. Each person has a story with some being traumatic leading to catastrophe while others are inspiring and empowering. To erase all that would be erasing our growth at articulating and understanding pornography, and thus at understanding our species in how we cognitively process sex, insecurity, fear, gender dynamics, etc. From an American standpoint we’re already at point of “being over the hump”. We’re past the Brady Bunch fear. What comes around, goes around. Rome gave way to the Dark Ages and Christendom, and that led to the modernity, and then so forth, so forth, so forth, so why erase and start over just to erase what can be learned from all that has been done? I totally reject the Puritanical view to sex (though emotions and fidelity do matter and are important) and if anything, the Puritanical unrealistic view to understanding human nature, while also not creating healthy outlets for sex (with a gender equal viewpoint), created the problems their ideological “Moral Right” descendants still preach. Yet, isn’t it ironic that the Right Wing preaches all this morality, yet, on its fringes lies a regressive, violent, fascist element, where some, as in the case of Pauley Harker engage in porn?

If anything, porn has been a tool for progressive change such as forcing reflection regarding the patriarchal ego to accept that women can willingly and voluntarily participate in acts that are contrary to one’s own moral beliefs, to showcasing the reality that people of different races have always been sexual with each other, or there is the fact that pornography is parallel to mainstream culture in that pornography’s various eras memorialize music, fashion, politics, etc. Pornography is like a cartoonish, visceral, hardcore, Precambrian mirror image of what is pent up on the surface above. It is similar to the medium of comedy in that comedy points out things that are obvious or analyzes possibilities which might not be so obvious, yet either/or, shocks the standard discourse, thus generating laughter, i.e., comedy like pornography, shocks us into our realness, hence once could say both have slight nihilistic tendencies, yet, what one calls nihilism, once can also argue as being something to nirvana (embracing impermanence, so we value our temporary time here in the living realm).

The urges that humans feel is eternal and complex. I would be lying to you if I did not state that I have not enjoyed watching pornography and I know quite a bit about it, similarly to how some people know about baseball statistics. It’s not a revolution thing to say. It’s casual sometimes, yet, a private thing. The history of porn in the USA spans from the seedy nickelodeons of the early twentieth century, to the stag films or post-war soft BDSM of Betty Paige in the forties and nineteen fifties, to New York amateur films of nineteen seventies New York, to the birth of the Hollywood-like productions of the seventies to the eighties (Deep Throat, The Devil In Miss Jones), to the invention of gonzo in the early nineties by John Stalgiano, to mid to late nineteen nineties “shock” Jerry Springer-esque Baywatch knock off exploitation genre such as that of JM Productions (always with a golem of a man bedding a double D platinum blonde model for the construction crew construct of American masculinity), to the zenith of the Golden Era with models like Jenna Jameson or Brianna Banks, to the early two-thousands Jackass-like WWE sex-competition style of porn with young women raised on Britney Spears  (the hubris of unfettered capitalism of the early Bush Era translating into the proletariat aspiring for a better life in the shadows of the Hollywood Hills and Paris Hilton), to the quasi avant-garde movement with Sasha Grey’s reading of existentialism coinciding with a generation of millennials – the first generation raised with social media – free from college and living in cities during a Recession (living their own HBO drama series), to the Alt Witchy scene of Joanna Angel, to the acceptance of BDSM after the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey (popularizing sites such as Kink), to the full actualization of democratized pornography with the invention of Hubs, Only Fans, “Link in Bio” within Instagram pages, etc., I’ve seen it all.

It is a personal and entertaining thing that people watch for an array of reasons from dealing with stress, dealing with horniness, boredom, curiosity, etc. Yet, America does still have a childish Brady Bunch morality relating to it, which is hypocritical considering the “mainstream economy” has used sexuality to push products for the capitalist machine. If anything conservatism is highly lowkey sexual, I mean just see all the IG bikini cowgirl models with Bible quotes shooting guns and still hung up that Obama won and who praise Trump.

I can honestly state that pornography helped me grow, but I do respect and like that it is “over there”, i.e., it’s not something I’m in but somewhere that I can travel to. Raised a Christian Protestant and made to feel guilty about sexual urges for fear damnation, to overcoming my young twenty’s feelings of misogyny as I learned to appreciate feminism (non-cringe), to simply learning to mind my own business and understand that people have their own preferences which might not be mine (yet, I have my own) but if there’s consent, safety, and pleasure, then go at it, have fun.

There are many strong women in the porn industry I respect such as legendary Nina Hartley, Joanna Angel, Ginger Lynn (who overcame a lot of personal trauma), etc. The types I would like to talk to about life in general rather that turning them into a sexual object. Women are more than sex, but sex being a straight male from them, is a joy. A real man accepts and acknowledges this. Yet, it seems that sex, being something that all humans crave, typically drowns out the more pressing issues at hand regarding feminism on an international scale, e.g., with the internet being global, the Western viewpoint of pornography which might be more nuanced, might not translate well to developing nations under the yoke of patriarchy which does use violence. For example, what a Western woman might find appealing might be helping to oppress women in developing nations living under older notions of gender roles, yet, this is not the Western woman’s fault, but just a reality of the complexity of the diverse world we live in.

But to the point of this paper. I was reading the news and saw a curious case about a male porn star who was caught in a gun running Neo Nazi ring in which this ring was plotting to kill Black Lives Matter protestors. Even if you do not personally agree with BLM (why you would not is beyond me), we must remember that Nazism is not only racist towards anyone not white (it’s pretty brutal towards white people as well considering the Nazis murdered plenty Germans and other Europeans) but is also sexist/misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, anti-free speech, anti-art, etc.

According to Joseph Wilkerson (2021) of New York Daily News, Paul Kryscuk, a male pornstar was arrested on interstate gun trafficking charges in a ring with three US Marines, in which Kryscuk, held video tapped training sessions near his Boise, Idaho home depicting themselves saying “Heil Hitler” under a Black Sun flag. I heard this story when it came out, but it faded away, but surfing around online, I stumbled upon a video by a site called “Abuse Her”. Not my type of stuff. It is pretty messed up content to be honest and I am surprised it is online. Women are spit upon, gagged, throw up in dog bowls, inserted roughly, slapped, choked, cry, etc.

Seeing people broken is not pleasurable. It is sadistic. Yet, has sadism from males become this sort of “top shelf” drug for some females? One way domination is not too appealing, personally. Sex is a symbiosis; however, I do feel that being men, there is a psychological satisfaction in slight dominance, i.e., leading the way. This site is like another borderline illegal series called Slap Happy featuring Brandon Irons who was known for his indifference and misogynistic comments. The genre of “revenge porn” is not something that I never got into, though I understand it has a following across genders. Morals aside, it is not my thing. Even the simulation of assault is unacceptable. To me, the angry “revenge” notion of porn is something a guy might go through in his twenties as he tries to succeed with the opposite sex (and fails), but it is something that one should grow out of, but even so, this level of content is unacceptable. It might also be something that women desire because the arena of pornography being  a controlled spaces, lets women simulate something in a controllable way, they fear they might be exposed to without consent.

What is sad about Abuse Her is… these actresses, who are of all races and religions, probably had no clue about Paul Kryscuk political beliefs, and honestly were probably indifferent to varying degree, since pornography is about money mostly. Being a guy, I know the spectrum of men and there are a lot of dirt-bags out there, ladies. Straight up. Men who simply hate, mock, and disrespect women. However, I do understand that getting experiences is a part of the formula. But Paul Kryscuk not only performed with the stereotypical “fresh off the bus” type of model new to Los Angeles, but he worked with veteran actresses such as Nina Hartley who is Jewish.

But a Neo Nazi roughly having anal sex and ejaculating on women’s faces, particularly in content that is depicting male dominance and shaming women… is just sad, honestly. It is easy to blame the men collectively as being soulless, and for those with “souls” to be “simps” “betas”, etc., but f-cking ex-convicts with some skills at video editing (with notable spider web tattoos over their elbows), shows how indifferent people are, including the women. It would be easy to say this is all an example of patriarchy, but we must remember that these women voluntarily participated in this content, knowing the impact on the perception of females, feminism, etc. This is where the curiosity comes from, I believe when many people watch porn, but I am speaking for myself (but maybe you can relate). They (I) are asking themselves (myself) why? They ask themselves this to understand to toughen their mindset from chaos. Sure, not every woman has to be a feminist if she does not want to. Sure, actors are not responsible for the political beliefs of content creators or consumers, but still… at the end of the day, these men, particularly this Neo Nazi was able continue old legacy of white supremacy, i.e., white male entitlement regardless of how regressive their beliefs are, to have the pleasure of women of all races without criticism (though if people of other colors do the same thing the behavior is stigmatized), while also making most of the profits. These profits in this case likely were going towards supporting an underground economy of illegal guns meant for the purpose of killing liberals, progressives, leftists, minorities, etc. It sounds like Zoolander, but this is no laughing matter. It reminds me of the action movie Heat in which a character who is a Neo Nazi, murders a black sex worker after having sex with her.

Paul Kryscuk is the epitome of white supremacy, white cynicism, and white privilege, and he was able to be in an industry that attracts many young women – for various reasons, e.g., economic reasons, life experiences, etc., – on the notion of sexual feminism. Is sexual feminism exposing the people it claims to be supporting to mockery at the hands of people who outside of porn want to commit racial, sexual, religious, and gender-oriented violence? Granted, I do understand that I am attacking a broad concept by calling out sexual feminism in this specific regard. Many sex-positive feminists are adamant about self-respect. So, who I am angry at here?

I think it is more so anger at our society at large with it being a capitalist system that breeds disparity but also breeds insecurity as people are brainwashed into conspicuous consumption, seeing it as a gauge of economic mobility, yet this same capitalist system appropriates concepts like sexual feminism (of any counter culture) to hide its inherently exploitative core. I am sure there are many people who would do sex work for free, but to be honest, most do it for money. Money that is going towards expensive college education in a system where Big Business requires people to obtain it without Big Business offering much assistance. The money is going towards inflated real estate prices propped up by Central Banks, speculators, and gentrification. The money is going towards helping loved ones who might not have great healthcare insurance. The money is going towards feeding children in which women and/or couples (including men) do not have access to reproductive health/family planning services. But the money is also going to waste. Waste on items that lose value the moment they are purchased and in many cases were created from exploited labor elsewhere.

But, as a reminder, I am not shaming women.

Have we become so nihilistic and indifferent as a society that actors like Kryscuk can snake their way into arenas perceived as more liberal in nature and exploit others? I hate to write this as if I am shaming women, but women are past the point of ignorance or “I just didn’t know”. Kryscuk and his gang were spotted observing Black Lives Matter protests in Boise and this was during a time in the nation when extremist groups such as Boogaloo murdered two law enforcement officers, a militia in Michigan attempted a kidnapping on the female Governor, rising levels of hate crimes, etc. It seems our hyper capitalist, overly cerebral, interconnected reality has created something akin to the sinister tone underneath the seemingly comedic vibe of a postmodern author. We live in complete chaos, yet it is a chaos of necessity, in that people are doing what they have to do to survive in constructed systems built on exploiting us all. Humans laboring to survive in an indifferent world who barter our own integrity to get by in a country of abhorrent wealth disparity, corporatism, draconian law and order, gentrification, etc., but it all distills in culture wars, thus disuniting the proletariat. I do not blame women, but I do admit that it is incredibly sad.

But what I mean by sadness is not some emotion response, but rather something that reminds me at least that we truly are in a void. Some sort of plane between things that is beyond our mental comprehension. “Meat puppets”, biological robots, with the capacity to feel, who might back to the conclusion that we aren’t simply slaves to ourselves in a cold vast universe, feeding off each other’s energy, because we’re “sad”. Something I feel Rush Cohle from True Detective might muse on.

I see Abuse Her.com as a detriment to women’s empowerment, all the hard work, etc. There is this notion that fantasy is not reality, but the truth is fantasy is inescapable from reality. No matter how existential, angry, nihilistic, empowered a person is on their ‘do what thy whilst’ journey, the individual, in this case the performer regardless of gender or orientation, has no control over how people will see them and usurp their value for their own purposes. A person can literally be masturbating to a woman for free and still vote for initiatives that enslaves her.

Yet, what I have come to realize is that women to an extent see such degrading content as…empowering. Some sort of challenge against their worst fear, their philosophical and ideological antagonist. It’s not only a challenge but also a reverse sort of psychological warfare through a moral dilemma back into the face of those who watch it.

To be honest one reason I watch porn is to toughen myself up. But I do consider it as art whether it be a fun film set on some B-cult classic knock off or sci-fi oriented movie, to something that is truly well-written and thought provoking. Something private. Something for adults that adults can handle. It is odd I know to admit this, but to me it is as if I like to ponder that a person, I see on screen could be any person walking by me in the real world. What is funny is, this is the case. There is something empowering and progressive to know that this person on film is a person elsewhere. They have dreams, goals, aspirations. They are more dimensional than just a sex object, and as a result it humanizes the experience for me. I empathize and respect. Part of me wants to say to a female performer, is “I don’t judge you. If anything, you helped me grow”.

But what this Neo Nazi situation means to me is that the sex industry needs to be normalized. The more normalized it becomes the safer of a space it becomes. People can be better vetted for their personal beliefs. Revenues can be better taxed to help society. I have heard stories from strippers saying they cannot buy a house since banks want to see pay stubs and many establishments do not give checks, but it is all cash. This is a problem. Considering taxpayers bailed out banks but banks oddly still shame sex workers on the lowkey. Hub sites should pay performers for residuals. If a million people even pay one penny for a watch, and that video gets a million views, that could translate to income for past performers at $10,000.00. The imagine investing that money in a trust fund with compound interest. The industry should have criminal background investigations (I am sure the standard studios do), on top of contract agreements where racism, sexism, etc., are banned and violation means disbarment from work, and such individuals would be ousted though the social grapevine. Yet, for modern content creators out there, I want to say that I do respect you, but you do have great power, so protect yourself and vet those who give the privilege of your bodies.

Source:

3 Marines and a porn star, all white supremacists, charged in federal gun conspiracy

#sexuality #gender #adultentertainment #politics #progressive